The Evolution of Archaeology

[DAZ 1900]

Hi all,

This may/may not have much relevance or indeed any bearing on Metal Detecting whatsoever! but is an interesting observation nonetheless and one that is worthy of discussion here in this section.

It is often said that Archaeology/Archaeologists prefer non invasive methods as opposed to the invasive (i.e surface surveys such as Geophysical as opposed to Digging) and that this is the future of Archaeology!

But the Question here is that is this the right/positive move forward for Archaeology, will the skills of today such as Trenchwork be forgotten in the Tommorrowworld? will Archaeology become a Profession solely for Geophysicists? will Archaeology under such a scheme in the future be cause for the discipline itself to De-evolve. I know Archaeology in it's current format goes hand in hand with the building trade, but like we are always reminded the Archaeological Resource is finite! surely the same could be said for building work! eventually maybe not in our lifetimes we may run out of space for new developements and/or Pipelines or we will just re-build over land that had once been occupied by other buildings! and replace the already existing Pipework. This Land will have already had Archaeological surveys done so there would be no need to do further work, so where would that leave Archaeology? at this moment how i understand it to be is that Archaeology has taken on the role of Guardian/Custodian of the Past for the future, but with such a future under a non invasive scheme or policy will future students of the past be better studying a course on Geophysics or Archaeology?

So in such a future could Metal Detecting have a place in the process by way of the discovery of new sites thus keeping the current traditions of Archaeology alive and well?

(yes i know i did say one question!:Dand there are several but all centred around a main theme!;):D)

Cheers!

D

[Steve-B]

Interesting post Daz, which in part follows on from something I said on the Henges thread.

Personallly I dont think is so much a problem of excavation skills being forgotten, but more one of a lack of development in this area.

If the main reason for leaving archaeology in situ is that it is left for a future generation of archaeologists, who are expected to have more advanced facilties for extracting the data from a site... I cant really see who they can become more advanced unless the process is continually developed and improved... surely this cant be done within a policy of no digging..

Geophisixs are only going to ever be able to provide a limited amount of data, however much this technology is improved, it wont be able to replace the hands on methodolgy of a digger.

The other problem is that anything left in the ground, will over a period of time decay, any information obtainable from a site is always in a state of reduction...

Metal Detecting I feel is already providing the service of indicating new previously unknown archaeology, expanding this process is one productive way of increasing cooperation and contact between the hobby and archaeology.




www.detector-distribution.co.uk

If a job is worth doing, then its worth doing it tomorrow!

Homer (Simpson)

[Steve-B]

Well...

I thought it was interesting Daz.... [8D]

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

If a job is worth doing, then its worth doing it tomorrow!

Homer (Simpson)

[garybrun]

Well this is part of the dilemma the disipline of archaeology is facing because there are a few different camps with different ideas. Dig or not to dig that is the question???

I think you will find that Mr Hosty is on the dig side especially when its being left to rot and lost for ever!!!

http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording OUR heritage for future generations.

[BAJR Host]

DIg it when needs be.. (nice prod to get me posting)

I am always on the horns of the dilema of preserve / dig to understand. As far as I am concerened a properly conducted survey/dig/assesment/and yes recorded detecting.. is of value. After all I still have vague memories of why I became an archaeolgist and have seen it mutate over the past quarter century.

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[DAZ 1900]

Thanks for that Steve![8D]:D

I think a bit of a nudge was needed to get this thread started!!:D

I think that Archaeology is weighed down by a great deal of guidlines, one which i hear quite often is;

Preservation in situ! so that future Generations with more advanced techniques can study sites of historical interest to conclusion!

This is fine! but what if future generations of Archaeologists are taught the same principles such as the one above then who gets to actively study the sites? and if digging is indeed phased out in the future how will these sites be monitored for natural degredation?


Thanks!

D

[Steve-B]

Come on guys this is supposed to be a two way street, cooperation will come from a better understanding of both metal detecting AND archaeology... cant get that if no one is going to discuss archaeology with us..

Just a thought..... :face-huh:

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

If a job is worth doing, then its worth doing it tomorrow!

Homer (Simpson)

[BAJR Host]

I think most of us are off digging ;))

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[garybrun]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

I think most of us are off digging ;))

....their own graves :D

http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording OUR heritage for future generations.

[m300572]

I doubt that excavation skills will become redundant in the near future, providing that the PPG15/16 replacement that we all await with bated breath continue to put the onus on developers to make suitable provision for the archaeology that they are going to 'develop'.

There is also a potential for large areas of the countryside to be excavated in advance of natural processes destroying the archaeology - my local example is Cockersands Abbey, a Scheduled Monument and one of Lancashires few monastic sites. The EA have decided not to spend the thick end of half a million quid on repairing the sea defences as they 'only' protect relativley low grade farm land (and the farmstead which is 150 metres inland) - and the remains of the site. There are many other sites which are threatened by coastal erosion and 'managed retreat'.

What is largely lacking though is a means of coordinating and funding the rescue excavation of these sites, under research conditions - this should include a geophysical survey of each site using different techniques in order to enhance interpretation of geophysics results by comparing survey and excavation results. They would also potentially create a huge public resource in terms of connecting 'the public's' interest in their heritage with professional archaeology which, due to the structure and funding of most current archaeological projects is sadly lacking. They might even provide an area of highly profitable cooperation between metal detecting and archaeolgy (profitable in terms of good relationships and information exchange, not financial).

[1man1desk]

From DAZ 1900:
quote:eventually maybe not in our lifetimes we may run out of space for new developements and/or Pipelines or we will just re-build over land that had once been occupied by other buildings!

Of course, the 'other buildings' referred to would be archaeological remains in their own right, whether they are the post-holes of an Iron Age round-house or the foundations of a 19th century industrial building.

Archaeologists do quite often use metal detectors in tandem with geophysics, fieldwalking and excavation work, to maximise artefact recovery.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[1man1desk]

quote:There is also a potential for large areas of the countryside to be excavated in advance of natural processes destroying the archaeology - my local example is Cockersands Abbey, a Scheduled Monument and one of Lancashires few monastic sites.

Not sure about England, but I know that a lot of resources have been devoted to 'rescue archaeology' for sites threatened by coastal erosion in Scotland.

I know the Cockersands site, and I am familiar with earlier stages of the EA project there, some years ago. My understanding was that it was about potential flooding rather than coastal erosion; the Abbey site represents 'high ground', where the flood defences on the low ground to north and south could be made to tie-in to land above the flood defence level.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[beamo]

Hi Daz - interesting question that you posed here but you and Steve are right to press for answers.

You refer to 'Preservation in situ! so that future Generations with more advanced techniques can study sites of historical interest to conclusion!' and then question whether archaeologists will retain the skills for excavation if preservation in situ means that we do not actually do as much of this as we could do.

Much of this debate stems from PPG16 which puts forward guidance to planning officers and developers. Para. 13 of PPG16 provides a government view as to why excavation should be seen as a 'second best option' and it is worth looking closely at the next part of the paragraph. 'The science of archaeology is developing rapidly. Excavation means the total destruction of evidence (apart from removable artefacts) from which future techniques could almost certainly extract more information than is currently possible.'

I think that this is not so much to do with the excavation skills of the archaeologists but more with the anticipated rise in scientific methodologies that can assist in the understanding of the site as a whole.

There have been previous debates that acknowledge that in terms of terrestrial field archaeology we have not made any massive leaps forward since the rise of single context recording leading to the development of the Harris-type matrix. However, the development of numerous scientific advances have allowed excavation to extract greater levels of information from the site, and this is what I consider to be behind the thinking expressed in PPG16.

All archaeological sites are valued primarily for the information that they hold, therefore our ability to extract that information is crucial. Buried archaeological sites are valued solely for that information. As all materials are subject to some level of decay, if our ability to extract the information remains constant then the amount of recoverable information will decrease in line with the decay of the materials concerned. However if our ability to recover information increases faster than the rate of decay then the amount of recoverable information will also increase. Hence the reason to leave sites alone if possible so that in the future our information recovery will be enhanced.

As most materials are actually decaying quite slowly, we do not need to have a particularly high rate of development in archaeological science. However, what we do need (as shown clearly by the two Preservation of Archaeological Remains in Situ conferences)are more case studies and investigations that help us understand decay rates and variations in such rates caused by development-driven impacts. Perhaps the forthcoming third conference will provide some results to look at.

Sorry for such a long answer - a shorter one would be to say that that most archaeologists would much rather dig a site than preserve it as digging is more fun.


Beamo

[Steve-B]

Dont apologies, that was an extremely interesting reply.

Beamo, can you give some examples of developing scientic archaeoogical practices that may be capable of extracting more information from a site, is there any particular area of development that is seen as exciting or potentially useful... other than physical digging?

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

If a job is worth doing, then its worth doing it tomorrow!

Homer (Simpson)

[Steve-B]

Peter/1man1desk.

I think we have similar situation down here in West Sussex. Over the years that has been a significant amount of coastal errosion.

Selsey being one such example, I have been hearing rumours that the coastal defences there will no longer be maintained, allowing the area to revert to an island... are you aware of this?

www.detector-distribution.co.uk

If a job is worth doing, then its worth doing it tomorrow!

Homer (Simpson)

[garybrun]

Great thread.
I know I may sound quite conceited but I believe also that archaeologists should be held responsible (like they do detectorists)for their actions and I appreciate the time you have taken to write such a interesting passage.
I think the problem archaeology has is that it doesn't explain itself and its action to the general public so they can understand.
My opinion is that some have to say "Oh its a site of National Importance"before you can get someone to listen to what you have to say.
I believe archaeology needs to be more open and not such a closed tight knit community.

http://www.ukdfd.co.uk
Recording OUR heritage for future generations.

[beamo]

Steve

Just look at two aspects - dating techniques and plant macrofossils. When radiocarbon dating was first developed this allowed for the dating of organic material, usually large bones, pieces of wood etc. However when small counter C14 dating arrived archaeologists realised that they could collect much smaller pieces (through flotation etc)and still get decent dates. Previously this material was not collected.

Thermoremnant magnetism dating (TRM) means that fired clay hearths are not dismantled until the possibility of dating has been considered. Thermoluminescence has given us the possibility of dating deposit sequences that would otherwise have relied on artefact contents, often in artefact-poor environments.

The use of plant-macrosfossils in analysis provides considerable information regarding the diet, crops and local environment of sites. This has not meant any real changes in how we actually dig the sites, but it changes how we recover material (bulk soil samples etc) and also how we allocate resources - more money in post-excavation in order to complete these types of analyses.

Gary - it is definitely not conceited to expect archaeologists to be held responsible for their actions.


Beamo

[m300572]

"My understanding was that it was about potential flooding rather than coastal erosion; the Abbey site represents 'high ground', where the flood defences on the low ground to north and south could be made to tie-in to land above the flood defence level."

The abbey site is on slightly higher ground which has a concrete apron along the edge - there have been a couple of minor breaches which have revealed bits of archaeology being washed out. I suspect that if the defences are left un-maintained the 'tie in' wont work as once the Cockersands defences break down the soft bit of coast will erode back beyond the line of the defences which have been upgraded - might take a few years (decades?) to go but it will happen in time. So it would be an ideal site for a long term research excavation!